July 5th, 2017, 07:24 AM  #11 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,937 Thanks: 2265 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Because this is the umpteenth thread you've posted full of this crap. One thread is sufficient. I've posted refutation after refutation, as have others. You have no answer other than childish complaints that "I believe this". This isn't kindergarten where we praise any old rubbish because the child tried and that's what's important. This is the real world (hehe) where getting it right matters.

July 5th, 2017, 07:34 AM  #12  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,049 Thanks: 680 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
*sigh* Quote:
However, you haven't done this because, for some reason, you won't accept that pi is a constant. Therefore, you have already come to the conclusion that pi is not a constant and are trying to work backwards to your conclusion. Now... let's investigate the problems with your circle stuff. Quote:
If you are instead constructing a triangle with straight sides that happens to have an opposite side length equal to $\displaystyle \frac{1}{120}$, then the value you derive no longer represents the radius of the circle. Quote:
Quote:
How about you read the posts we made previously and actually understand them? Here's convenience links for you: single pi number ? Physical Theory of Sophisticated lines Last edited by Benit13; July 5th, 2017 at 07:44 AM.  
July 5th, 2017, 07:41 AM  #13 
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  people have judgment
I did not publish results. I have published that only measurement can prove the idea. And I even added that a scientific institution would want to conduct the experiment. Do you think people have no judgment? As you disqualify they can also disqualify. I have no problem getting a disqualification I have a problem if they do not let me express myself. I hope they do not close. Thanks 
July 5th, 2017, 07:54 AM  #14 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,937 Thanks: 2265 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
And that, again is a reason to close it. Benit13 posted a critique of your statement and you have simply ignored it. If you want to publish, send it off to a few journals. See how far you get. Close it. If I were a moderator you'd also receive a warning that posting this again would result in a ban. 
July 5th, 2017, 07:57 AM  #15  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,049 Thanks: 680 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This forum is about truth and learning and you're doing neither. Quote:
For some reason beyond us, you have made your mind up that the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter is different for different circles. This is false. We keep giving you proofs over and over again that they are the same and we keep spotting problems with your flawed mathematics experiments that fail to take into account measurement error, but you simply won't learn from your mistakes or accept that you're wrong (which you clearly are). That's why we close your threads.  
July 5th, 2017, 08:05 AM  #16 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,937 Thanks: 2265 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
If your idea were correct, the circumference of a circle would change at a different rate to the diameter as you walked away from it. In the case of a bubble, this would involve changing the pressure inside the bubble simply by moving the observer. Even more dumb, the pressure would be different for different observers at the same instant.

July 5th, 2017, 08:37 AM  #17 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,937 Thanks: 2265 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
That BS from start to finish. You don't even understand what mathematics is. You don't know what a circle is. You don't know what you are doing at all. All you've done is approximately measured some approximate circles and then read a load of stuff that isn't there into your approximations. One thing is for sure: this is not mathematics and should be shut down as being off topic. 
July 5th, 2017, 08:45 AM  #18  
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  Thank you Quote:
I get your position on a single number for a pie. I also accept the perception that there is proof of a single number of pie. I do not argue, but I stand in the opposite direction. I hope they will not close my messages, because they do not interfere. I apologize for my English, which is assisted by a Google translation. Thanks  
July 5th, 2017, 08:58 AM  #19  
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  Round lines us a physical subject Quote:
She can handle only straight line segments. Therefore, round lines is not at all a mathematical subject. This round is a physical subject. But you will not agree with me, and I will not recommend closing your messages. Thanks  
July 5th, 2017, 09:08 AM  #20 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,049 Thanks: 680 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  

Tags 
circles, existed, fixed, number 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How do you show a Möbius transformation maps circles to circles and lines?  math93  Geometry  0  November 3rd, 2015 02:43 PM 
RiDo Circles. Sin & Cos Circles  RiDo  Algebra  2  June 21st, 2012 01:31 AM 
Number of Necklace/Bracelets With Fixed Number of Beads  UnreasonableSin  Number Theory  2  June 13th, 2010 12:03 AM 
Convert binary range with fixed number of zeros/ones  hansdejong  Number Theory  2  June 30th, 2009 04:15 PM 
Fixed Points  mathbalarka  Calculus  1  December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM 