My Math Forum Never existed - a fixed number of circles.

 Trigonometry Trigonometry Math Forum

July 5th, 2017, 07:24 AM   #11
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,854
Thanks: 2228

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar hy close?
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: 2,020
Thanks: 666

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
*sigh*

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar Never existed – a fixed number of circles. But always exists – a fixed number of squares. The mathematics of squares is very simple Square circumference will be marked with c Square diagonal will be marked with d Two squares are arbitrarily selected. C1 = 3 mm c2 = 137 mm If c 1 = 3 mm , then d 1 = ( 3 : 4 ) root 2 If c 2 = 137 mm , then d 2 = ( 137 : 4 ) root 2 Therefor c1 : c 2 = d 1 : d 2 c 1 : d 1 = c 2 : d 2 = 4 : ( root 2 ) = K1 K1 is the constant number of all squares ( 2.8284271…) The mathematics of circles is not simple
Why not? You could do the exact same thing above with circles with the knowledge that the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is pi.

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:
 Length of 2r = 3 : 360 \ sin 0.5 = 0.9549417
This is the main problem. Your formula is wrong because the opposite side of your triangle does not have a length of $\displaystyle \frac{3}{360} = \frac{1}{120}$. Trigonometry is valid for triangles with straight sides, not triangles with curved sides.

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sides that happens to have an opposite side length equal to $\displaystyle \frac{1}{120}$, then the value you derive no longer represents the radius of the circle.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:
 2r is d1 of c 1 0.9549417 is d 1 of c 1 C 1 : d 1 = 3 : 0.9549417 = 3.141553 To be more precise, we subtract 0.01% from 0.9549417 because the arc is very crooked, and it longer then the string
If you're measuring circles with a string, you're going to get measurement error. I've discussed measurement error in detail in a post to you a long time ago.

Quote:
 C 1 : d 1 = 3 : 0.9548745 = 3.1417741 Now divide the C2 into 360 equal parts Each part is a small arc that is long = 137 mm : 360 = 0.380555…mm To each end of one arc ,we add a straight line, marked with r The straight lines create an angle of 1 degree Length of 2r = 137 : 360 \ sin 0.5 = 43.609185 2r is d 2 of c 2 43.609185 is d 2 of c 2 C 2 : d 2 = 137 : 43.609 = 3.141553 To be more precise, we subtract 0.002 % from 43.609185 - because The arc is not very crooked , and it very little longer from the string. C 2 : d 2 = 137 : 43.608313 = 3.1416028 C 1 : d 1 = = = = = = = = = 3.1417741 C 1 : c 2 ( is not = ) c 2 : d 2 These figures illustrate the very small change in the ratio c : d This ratio depends on c When C is close to zero mm , the ratio is maximum ( 3.164) When c is close to infinity mm , the ratio is minimum ( 3.1416) The mean ratio of 3.15 will be at c = 0.001 mm . All that is said is a theory, and only a real measurement can prove it Aetzbar
You are effectively approximating a circle using triangles and then coming to the conclusion that it's not quite a circle. Go figure.

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: 6,854 Thanks: 2228 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: 2,020
Thanks: 666

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar I did not publish results. I have published that only measurement can prove the idea.
It's easy to show that all circles have the same relationship between circumference and diameter. We've posted time and time again how to do such studies. Yet you keep coming back with the same issues. That's what's really making us annoyed at you.

Quote:
 And I even added that a scientific institution would want to conduct the experiment.
Sure, but your ideas are flawed. We've been telling you what the problems are with your work for over 2 years now and it seems you haven't taken any of our criticisms on board.

Quote:
 Do you think people have no judgment? As you disqualify they can also disqualify.
Agreed, but we're closing your threads because you're wrong and won't learn from your mistakes, not because we don't like you.

This forum is about truth and learning and you're doing neither.

Quote:
 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.
Okay, but mathematics is not about personal expression, it's about objective truthfulness and learning.

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: 6,854 Thanks: 2228 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: 6,854 Thanks: 2228 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. Thanks from Joppy
July 5th, 2017, 08:45 AM   #18
Banned Camp

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 118
Thanks: 0

Thank you

Quote:
Thank you for taking the time to criticize my idea.
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:
 Originally Posted by v8archie 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.
Do you know that math does not even know how to handle round lines?
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: 2,020
Thanks: 666

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar Do you know that math does not even know how to handle round lines?
But it can! We've been trying to tell you this for 2 years now...

 Tags circles, existed, fixed, number

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post math93 Geometry 0 November 3rd, 2015 03:43 PM RiDo Algebra 2 June 21st, 2012 01:31 AM UnreasonableSin Number Theory 2 June 13th, 2010 12:03 AM hans-de-jong Number Theory 2 June 30th, 2009 04:15 PM mathbalarka Calculus 1 January 1st, 1970 12:00 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top