[I think out of the box]

These are the famous people from past century sciences that have used numerology to dispher pi ratio.


If this is so, then can numerology also be applied to facts in the science world????


Diophantus of Alexandria,

22/7 = 3.14285714285714

http://en.wikipedia...._exceeds_%CF%80




Isaac Newton

223/71 = 3.14084507042254

http://www.ms.uky.ed...h330/Newton.pdf






MY PERSONAL FIND:

This is my finding not using numerology of which HAS BEEN copyrighted and been validated.



-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...



I would like to know other's inputs on Issac Newton, and Diophantus of Alexandria in comparing my find to theirs..

Thanks!

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 06:04 PM

[John Cuthber]

"I would like to know other's inputs on Issac Newton, and Diophantus of Alexandria in comparing my find to theirs.."
OK, Diphantus was fairly close. Newton was closer.
Yours i.e.
"-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510..."
is wrong.
Also, theirs are ratios, rather than sums which makes them more useful

[Klaynos]

Their numbers were not picked out of the air.

[insane_alien]

you're not very good at maths are you?

copyright does not mean validation

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

https://www.xkcd.com/687/

[the tree]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

These are the famous people from past century sciences that have used numerology to dispher pi ratio.

I think it's worth assuming that in fact, they used maths. As Klaynos said, the numbers weren't just picked out of the air.

Also, Newton holds the credit for:

which a whole lot more impressive than a single ratio.

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

In, y'know, the real world:
-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.141592653589790000000000000000000000..
It's fairly obvious, when you think about it, that you're not going to have more decimal places in the sum than the in the terms being added.

This post has been edited by the tree: 17 January 2012 - 07:29 PM

[Tres Juicy]

Isn't this the exact same thread as "question about 2012"?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Numerology

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mathematics

Just out of interest run your posts through this:
http://crackpotbingo...kpotindex.shtml

[I think out of the box]

can you prove this???? where is the evidence????? fair is fair!

Klaynos, on 17 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Their numbers were not picked out of the air.

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

can you prove this???? where is the evidence????? fair is fair!

I'll do you a deal:



Here is one way to calculate pi using maths



Let's see your method

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 09:16 PM

[Klaynos]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

can you prove this???? where is the evidence????? fair is fair!

Read the links you posted.

[I think out of the box]

You obviously do not read, i have placed a complaint about your stalking me and derailing my post as an instigator....





THIS TOPIC RELATES TO

Tres Juicy, on 17 January 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

Isn't this the exact same thread as "question about 2012"?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Numerology

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mathematics

Just out of interest run your posts through this:
http://crackpotbingo...kpotindex.shtml

HAHA! you are so funny, put this in type such as I have!

1/0.3178571072492 = 3.14606776816854 = PI RATIO! m /s

Tres Juicy, on 17 January 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

I'll do you a deal:



Here is one way to calculate pi using maths



Let's see your method

what does me mentioning copy right have to do with the title of this thread????

insane_alien, on 17 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

you're not very good at maths are you?

copyright does not mean validation

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

You obviously do not read, i have placed a complaint about your stalking me and derailing my post as an instigator....

THIS TOPIC RELATES TO

How is asking you for more information/evidence derailing your post?

When people start asking you for evidence or to explain your reasoning, you abandon the thread and start a new one.

It's like your running away from the questions you can't answer

[I think out of the box]

What links?????

The ones they closed down?????


LETS SEE YOU, DO THIS: ANOTHER METHOD OF MINE....

1 / 0.3178571072492 = 3.14606776816854 = PI RATIO! m /s

Now this is division...

Go ahead, closed this thread,, i know you will, every time "we" meaning you, can't prove their math such as I, they shut me off..

I ASKED YOU TO CLOSE MY ACCOUNT AND YOU DID NOT. I ALSO COMPLAINED ABOUT OTHERS HERE WHOM HAVE "SWEARED AT ME" AND STATED THAT MY FINDS WERE "DUMB." THEY SOUND LIKE CHILDREN NOT FULL GROWN ADULTS.....


YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELVES, MANY PEOPLE ARE SEEING THIS AND NOTICE.

Klaynos, on 17 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Read the links you posted.

HE GETS THE CREDIT FOR "k" also????


Does he also get the credit for the invention of sqauring a number??

How about the summation sign?


The Division???


Hymm, seems like Sir Newton gets pamperd much!

the tree, on 17 January 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

I think it's worth assuming that in fact, they used maths. As Klaynos said, the numbers weren't just picked out of the air.

Also, Newton holds the credit for:

which a whole lot more impressive than a single ratio.

In, y'know, the real world:
-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.141592653589790000000000000000000000..
It's fairly obvious, when you think about it, that you're not going to have more decimal places in the sum than the in the terms being added.

Dimensional Analysis has no such thing as abuse, because it is dimensionless, it has not form nor existence....Lame attempt to make yourself look good..NOT!

.

Cap, on 17 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

https://www.xkcd.com/687/

[Tres Juicy]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

What links?????

The ones they closed down?????

LETS SEE YOU, DO THIS: ANOTHER METHOD OF MINE....

1 / 0.3178571072492 = 3.14606776816854 = PI RATIO! m /s

Um.... The ones in your original post at the top of this thread.... Did you read them?

This is not an explaination of anything

Quote

Now this is division...

Go ahead, closed this thread,, i know you will, every time "we" meaning you, can't prove their math such as I, they shut me off..

Again, they close the threads because you give us no means to discuss them

Quote

I ASKED YOU TO CLOSE MY ACCOUNT AND YOU DID NOT. I ALSO COMPLAINED ABOUT OTHERS HERE WHOM HAVE "SWEARED AT ME" AND STATED THAT MY FINDS WERE "DUMB." THEY SOUND LIKE CHILDREN NOT FULL GROWN ADULTS.....


YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELVES, MANY PEOPLE ARE SEEING THIS AND NOTICE.

Quote

The Crackpot Index says:
5 points for each word in all capital letters

You're scorng high with this one... If you want your account closed, close it - simple.

No doubt you want someone else to close it so that you can claim to have been persecuted.

All anyone has asked of you is to provide your reasoning or evidence or method you're using.

I told you at the start of this thread that if you did not do these things the thread would go down hill.

This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 17 January 2012 - 10:06 PM

[the tree]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

LETS SEE YOU, DO THIS: ANOTHER METHOD OF MINE....
1 / 0.3178571072492 = 3.14606776816854 = PI RATIO! m /s

Seriously? You want us to match that? 392699/125000=3.141592 there you go. Not exactly challenging. Where you really expecting anyone to not be able to produce a rational approximation of pi?

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

THEY SOUND LIKE CHILDREN NOT FULL GROWN ADULTS.....

Actually a lot of the people on this forum are kids, since we're discussing pretty basic math here, that's not too surprising.

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELVES, MANY PEOPLE ARE SEEING THIS AND NOTICE.

Now, do you think these 'many people' are laughing at the people who know a little maths? Or do you think they are the laughing at the person who brought up numerology in a science forum? Which would you say is more likely?

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

HE GETS THE CREDIT FOR "k" also???? Does he also get the credit for the invention of sqauring a number?? How about the summation sign? The Division??? Hymm, seems like Sir Newton gets pamperd much!

No. He does get the credit for that equation though. I think your comprehension might improve if you try to read a little slower, and more carefully. Don't get ahead of yourself.

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Dimensional Analysis has no such thing as abuse, because it is dimensionless, it has not form nor existence....

I'm just quoting this because it's funny to read.


Anyone still counting the index?

[Tres Juicy]

the tree, on 17 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Anyone still counting the index?

It's way off the scale....Best score I've seen for a long time

Nice post Tree +1

[I think out of the box]

No, I have been referred to as, " a smart ass" " dumb" and I have no proper schooling, and other accusations, that I will no longer tolerate here..... Like I said, this topic is public, other people have told me why are those members so rude to you...Another said because this forum is Privately Owned And Some Are Privileged.

I think it is because your are all spoiled!!


You just do not close your account, " No it all" you need to be banned!

Tres Juicy, on 17 January 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Um.... The ones in your original post at the top of this thread.... Did you read them?

This is not an explaination of anything



Again, they close the threads because you give us no means to discuss them





You're scorng high with this one... If you want your account closed, close it - simple.

No doubt you want someone else to close it so that you can claim to have been persecuted.

All anyone has asked of you is to provide your reasoning or evidence or method you're using.

I told you at the start of this thread that if you did not do these things the thread would go down hill.

Of coarse not, NOW DIVIDE BY 1



3.141592*125000 = 392699



0.000008/0.00000254647962 = 3.14159199907518

the tree, on 17 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Seriously? You want us to match that? 392699/125000=3.141592 there you go. Not exactly challenging. Where you really expecting anyone to not be able to produce a rational approximation of pi?

Actually a lot of the people on this forum are kids, since we're discussing pretty basic math here, that's not too surprising.

Now, do you think these 'many people' are laughing at the people who know a little maths? Or do you think they are the laughing at the person who brought up numerology in a science forum? Which would you say is more likely?

No. He does get the credit for that equation though. I think your comprehension might improve if you try to read a little slower, and more carefully. Don't get ahead of yourself.

I'm just quoting this because it's funny to read.


Anyone still counting the index?

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 11:29 PM

[ydoaPs]

I think out of the box, on 17 January 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

No, I have been referred to as, " a smart ass" " dumb" and I have no proper schooling, and other accusations, that I will no longer tolerate here..... Like I said, this topic is public, other people have told me why are those members so rude to you...Another said because this forum is Privately Owned And Some Are Privileged.

I think it is because your are all spoiled!!


You just do not close your account, " No it all" you need to be banned!







Of coarse not, NOW DIVIDE BY 1



3.141592*125000 = 392699



0.000008/0.00000254647962 = 3.14159199907518

[I think out of the box]

wow is that you??????????????????? you look like your on drugs!

ydoaPs, on 17 January 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Cdiz0k0Rudw

Why give me a negative quote, this is not about science, this is about that video of that ugly girl on crack that you posted up.....
Be upfront, , is that you?????? If it is , I am very sorry about your childhood, my prayers go out to you my friend..

Oh, lord, here my voice and bless this person, give them strength and courage to face the world...Amen

ydoaPs, on 17 January 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Cdiz0k0Rudw

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 17 January 2012 - 11:38 PM

[the tree]

*you're.